I think you’re missing the psychological effect of pulling a weapon with an optic. It’s a clear indication the perpetrator bit off more than they can chew regardless of the competency of the firearm owner. Most communications are nonverbal so…

 

I think you’re missing the psychological effect of pulling a weapon with an optic. It’s a clean indication the perpetrator bit off more than they can chew regardless of the competency of the firearm owner. Most communications are nonverbal so…

Most street skels would be more impressed if you had the selector switch on yo nina

 

For me the red dot has been a real game changer. Did take some getting used to but probably wouldn’t ever go back, just takes practice. View attachment 1215147

 

Not a fan of this latest red dot craze. Tried it, and I'm much faster with regular iron sights. No, don't tell me I'll 'get used to it' or I'll 'learn how to use it'...ain't happening. Trying to find that little red dot in the small window...ridiculous.

 

Simply push the weapon out instead of swinging it up. Like anything, it does in fact take practice. Of course if you don't want to that's up to you.

 

I might need to play with them more but on a carry I’m not a fan. It seems gun manufacturers have been streamlining carry guns for ease of draw for years. Thing like removing hammers on revolvers and in general making them snag free. Then we plop on optic on top. Seems it could be a snag when you’re in a hurry. BUT that is my opinion based on very limited use.

 

Certainly an option, if you can still conceal.

 

One could argue the points and counterpoints in every which way to Sunday, but in the end it makes no difference because we're all individuals who have differing viewpoints on such matters, and no one is right or wrong for their choice. As far as myself, I consider an optic to be an absolute advantage and requirement for everything these days (moderate astigmatism), to include my every day carry pieces and rimfire handgun/fun guns.

Below is one of my SIG P365 carry pieces wearing a Holosun 507K optic; it's easily concealable to the point that I often forgetting I'm carrying...

...and it only took a short while before I became accustomed to using one easily and effectively.

 

guns.

Below is one of my SIG P365 carry pieces wearing a Holosun 507K optic; it's easily concealable to the point that I often forgetting

I also have astigmatism and trying to figure out if this is a road worth traveling. What reticle is you red dot? Is it red or green? What does the reticle look like with your astigmatism?

 

Let's look at the history:

1) Around 1975 red dots were created for rifles
2) In the 1980s those same red dots intended for rifles were put on pistols for competition, typically frame mounted, and they were shown to be better than irons.
3) The Doctor/RMR was created to sit on top of an ACOG on a rifle
4) We are here All modern pistol optics are some variation on the RMR, mounted to the slide. There are a lot of options, some mounting systems are questionable. The optics endure a lot of force since they're mounted to the slide. It's not a 30mm window like was on the older competition guns.
5) In the future I think we will see guns designed from the ground up to use red dots and get the dot mounted to the frame. Similar to a Ruger Mark IV Tactical where there is an internal bolt and rail on the frame, but in 9mm instead of .22LR.

For me I tried a G17 Gen5 MOS with an RMR but didn't like how it was mounted, how small it was, how hard it was to change the battery, etc. I found it advantageous for accuracy at 25 and 50 yards but worse at shorter ranges.

 

Let's look at the history:

1) Around 1975 red dots were created for rifles
2) In the 1980s those same red dots intended for rifles were put on pistols for competition, typically frame mounted, and they were shown to be better than irons.
3) The Doctor/RMR was created to sit on top of an ACOG on a rifle
4) We are here All modern pistol optics are some variation on the RMR, mounted to the slide. There are a lot of options, some mounting systems are questionable. The optics endure a lot of force since they're mounted to the slide. It's not a 30mm window like was on the older competition guns.
5) In the future I think we will see guns designed from the ground up to use red dots and get the dot mounted to the frame. Similar to a Ruger Mark IV Tactical where there is an internal bolt and rail on the frame, but in 9mm instead of .22LR.

For me I tried a G17 Gen5 MOS with an RMR but didn't like how it was mounted, how small it was, how hard it was to change the battery, etc. I found it advantageous for accuracy at 25 and 50 yards but worse at shorter ranges.

 

I've been carrying with an optic (on a G19 clone) since last September. I've got 6,700 rounds through it since September (when I completed building it).

I am definitely faster with the optic than iron sights.... and more accurate. But I've trained that way (with professional instruction) and practiced a LOT. This was all rapid fire (punch out from compressed ready and 4-5 round "dumps").

A more recent trio of targets for those who will invariably mention not using sights at closer distances (point shooting). "I got you." For these drills, I used point shooting at COM and transitioned to the dot sight for head shots for the 2nd and 3rd targets. Bear in mind that these 3D torso targets are 14" wide, so about 3/4 scale.

I can highly recommend the Holosun 507 with the ACSS Vulcan reticle, especially for those new to "dots." The outer ring helps like "training wheels." Eventually, you won't need the training wheels.

That all said, I still also practice with iron sights, despite the decline in my ability to focus on the front sight.

 

That's some very good shooting. I've never used anything except iron sights. I've recently purchased my first Glock and I've been doing some improvements to it.

I've just recently purchased my first Glock. And I've never used anything except iron sights. I've always used a handheld flashlight while using my handgun for those bumps in the night. I've purchased a laser flashlight combo since there's eight of us in the house. I want to make sure that I know who I'm hearing at night and I want to make sure of where I'm aiming. I wasn't real sure of the red dots because I wasn't sure how well they worked and that's some serious cash to lay down for something you're not sure how well it works. I've had double cornea transplants because I lost my vision. Now I see well in distance but I don't have my glasses to see up close yet. After seeing your pictures and reading your post. I think I'll buy a Gen 5 MOS pistol next. I'll have my glasses by then. But for now the laser flashlight is a great choice for me. But I have to say you've convinced me enough to try it. Thank you my friend. Happy shooting.

 

All my guns have dots, with the exception of my 1911s

 

If they are that good whats holding you back ?

 

If you‘re willing to train and become proficient with an optic, they’re generally advantageous. For typical distances in self defense engagements, it likely won’t be a game changer, but the optic allows you to maintain sight focus on the threat and if you have to engage at longer distances they typically yield better results. In my view they are a push at worst and an advantage at best. Of course, the optic comes with more expense and it’s a matter of whether you find benefits worth the added cost of the optic and training needed to become proficient with it.

 

but the optic allows you to maintain sight focus on the threat and if you have to engage at longer distances they typically yield better results.

This is a huge advantage... threat focus. And that's why it works so well in combination of point shooting (aka threat-focused shooting). In my target examples above (previous comment), I didn't really "transition to sights" for the head shots in the traditional sense of shifting focus. My focus was always on the target. When I transitioned from COM point shooting to head shots, I simply shifted my focus to the head and brought the "dot" over the top of it.

 

Hmmm... deja vu....

Has this been discussed before??

 

Probably but technology advances.

 

An added pro:
Superior sighting paradigm. They give the shooter the ability to focus on the target, just lay the dot on the target and send it. No need to bring the front sight into sharp focus (moving focus off the target), align with the rear sight, lay the whole picture on the target while maintaining sight alignment, and then sending it. This is really the main point.

I don't see that instructors using RDSs as a pro, as much as it indicates they see a benefit to using them.

As far as your cons, some are irrelevant and the other easily managed.

The issue with using sights at gunfight distances is a wash between irons and dots. If you don't needs sights to get the shot on target you don't need either. If you do need a sight, the dot will likely be faster and more accurate.

The speed issue is really a training/conversion issue for shooters who've burned using irons into they're psyche. They need to train over to dots, at which point the dot will likely be faster and easier.

Batteries and electronics in general: Schedule a battery change well within the battery life of the red dot. Also, at least once a week, better once a day, just check the dot. Look through the sight and make sure the dot is visible. If it's dead, you can deal with it immediately. Don't leave the sight unchecked for months at a time. The chances of having a defensive shooting on any particular day or week are very small. If you know the dot is working at the beginning of the week, the chances of it going dead by the end of the week are also very small (especially if you stick the the battery change schedule.) If you never look though the sight for months, the chance of it being dead without you knowing are significantly higher. Is there a good reason not to inspect a carry gun, and for more / other issues besides the battery in the dot, at least weekly?

Dots require conversion training/practice. Once converted, I think the practice level required to maintain proficiency is the same, maybe a little less.

Should a Glock edc ( Glock 17 or Glock 19) have an optic on it.
Pros:
1. You can hit the target better helping with bullet placement
2.I notice more and more firearms instructors have them on their Glocks,
3. some big city police departments are now putting them on their Glocks.
4. Good for old eyes or people with vision difficuties
Cons:
1 Typical gun civilian fights ( according to Tom Givens - who tracked 70 of his students gun fights) take place at a car length - so would a red dot really be needed or just a useless appendage?
2. Might be slower to use than iron sights
3. Battery could go out - so you would need to practice with both the iron sight with battery off and the red dot
4. Requires more practice
Ok what am I missing and what is your opinion on having the red dot on your edc Glock?

 

Should a Glock edc ( Glock 17 or Glock 19) have an optic on it.
Pros:
1. You can hit the target better helping with bullet placement
Yes
2.I notice more and more firearms instructors have them on their Glocks,
Who cares? You do you
3. some big city police departments are now putting them on their Glocks.
Who cares? You do you
4. Good for old eyes or people with vision difficuties
Yes. Also good for people with great vision while dryfiring or shooting at the range but who's near-sighted vision required for iron usage will potentially turn to garbage anyway under stress due to physiological factors. See the "you'll never find your sights in a gunfight" crowd.

Cons:
1 Typical gun civilian fights ( according to Tom Givens - who tracked 70 of his students gun fights) take place at a car length - so would a red dot really be needed or just a useless appendage?
Who cares? You do you. Plus are you betting on being in a typical gunfight?
2. Might be slower to use than iron sights
Might be. Practice so you won't be.
3. Battery could go out - so you would need to practice with both the iron sight with battery off and the red dot
Buy quality. Change battery at intervals. Don't worry about it. Do you already know how to align sights if you had to revert? Yes? Then no additional practice required switching back from a dot.
4. Requires more practice
Maybe. Likely. Depends on current skill. But if more practice would be required it isn't because a dot required it, it's because your core skills aren't as good as they should be and irons are just covering up deficiencies. Practicing on a dot isn't to use a dot better, it's to make you a better shooter regardless of sighting system.
Ok what am I missing and what is your opinion on having the red dot on your edc Glock?

Not much. You do you. After a bunch of force-on-force with irons and with dot guns, I'm never carrying without a dot given an option.

 

You do you and I’ll do me.

All my guns have dots on them. Except the ones that’s don’t.

 

I have carry Guns with and and without an optic on them, right now my main carry is a g43xmos with Crimson Trace RADPro Green Dot and both carries and shoots flawless. Just depends on what I'm wearing or what I'm going to do that day.

 

Should a Glock edc ( Glock 17 or Glock 19) have an optic on it.
Pros:
1. You can hit the target better helping with bullet placement
2.I notice more and more firearms instructors have them on their Glocks,
3. some big city police departments are now putting them on their Glocks.
4. Good for old eyes or people with vision difficuties
Cons:
1 Typical gun civilian fights ( according to Tom Givens - who tracked 70 of his students gun fights) take place at a car length - so would a red dot really be needed or just a useless appendage?
2. Might be slower to use than iron sights
3. Battery could go out - so you would need to practice with both the iron sight with battery off and the red dot
4. Requires more practice
Ok what am I missing and what is your opinion on having the red dot on your edc Glock?

My opinion, fostered by my dads wisdom as an NRA instructor of over 30 years and a Senior weapons training officer for 35 years as well as tactical weapons combat and weapon retention, is that a carry weapon and your proficiency in self defense shooting, should always be with an open sight weapon, in the event that your optic is broken in a fight, or in the rare circumstance where your weapon is stolen or you are forced to use another persons weapon in self defense. I personally know a couple men who have disarmed an enemy and obtained the weapon and had to use it. If you can’t even shoot well with open sights, you shouldn’t be carrying an optic equipped weapon as your every day carry. Having an optic also makes it much easier for the enemy to use your weapon against you if you suck at firearm retention.

with all that said, if none of those things concern you, I would still prefer no optic, as it adds an inconvenient dynamic to concealing the weapon, and it’s a few more corners for apparel to catch on and slow the draw in an emergency.

 

If you can’t even shoot well with open sights, you shouldn’t be carrying an optic equipped weapon as your every day carry.

The fundamentals of pistol marksmanship are EXACTLY the same regardless of sighting system. If you shoot "low-right" with irons, you'll do the same with an optic... for example. If you suck, you suck. Professional coaching / instruction is a valuable thing, even as a refresher for experienced shooters. Ask me how I know!

So I agree that regardless of sighting system, good effective and accurate shooting comes down to a mastery (or at least competency) of the fundamentals.

Having an optic also makes it much easier for the enemy to use your weapon against you if you suck at firearm retention.

This is a puzzling statement. In the first comment quoted above, the implication is that an optic won't make you a better shooter or compensate for poor fundamentals (true for the most part). But now it seems you're suggesting the optic on your pistol... should it be taken from you by a bad guy... will magically make it "easier" to use against you. So, presumably with ZERO optic experience, the bad guy will turn into John Wick because your firearm has an optic?

Or did I misunderstand? Seems self-contradictory.

I would still prefer no optic, as it adds an inconvenient dynamic to concealing the weapon, and it’s a few more corners for apparel to catch on and slow the draw in an emergency.

From personal experience since last September. Not only did I add an optic, I went up from a subcompact (G27) to a compact (G19) pistol. I have not found it to be an inconvenience for concealment. And at least in my case, my draw has improved - because of a larger grip. But I cannot agree that the optic changes anything at all as it pertains to concealment and drawing from concealment.

 

If you’re not going to take the time to train on how to properly use an optic and GET training, not just mindlessly shoot at the range, then don’t get an optic. Stick to what you know.

 

You must have proper training before or after you get the MOS. ITS ALL ABOUT GOOD TRAINING. With it you "should" be quicker and more accurate.

 

Should a Glock edc ( Glock 17 or Glock 19) have an optic on it.
Pros:
1. You can hit the target better helping with bullet placement
2.I notice more and more firearms instructors have them on their Glocks,
3. some big city police departments are now putting them on their Glocks.
4. Good for old eyes or people with vision difficuties
Cons:
1 Typical gun civilian fights ( according to Tom Givens - who tracked 70 of his students gun fights) take place at a car length - so would a red dot really be needed or just a useless appendage?
2. Might be slower to use than iron sights
3. Battery could go out - so you would need to practice with both the iron sight with battery off and the red dot
4. Requires more practice
Ok what am I missing and what is your opinion on having the red dot on your edc Glock?

PROS
1. Not really - RMR doesn't make you more accurate a(all else being equal)
2. OK
3. OK
4. That's why I put them on my G19 and CZ PCR (easier to focus on the red/green dot versus a standard front sight) (yes, I know with an RMR you focus on the target, but not the point here)

CONS
1. One could make the argument that sights in general at that distance are irrelevant
2. there is definitely a learning curve involved, especially for people who grew up with iron sights
3. hence the importance of co-witnessing the iron sights
4. see con #2

additional:
PROS:
1. Some say it is easier to maintain situational awareness with a red dot than iron sights
2. looks cool
3. easier for a one hand rack

CONS:
1. no all firearms come pre-cut, so there is a financial commitment to getting the slide milled
2. not everyone wants to get their only slide milled, so there may be another financial commitment to purchasing a second slide (if you can find one)
3. holster selection/availability
4. for some it's not as concealable

 

I’m faster with a dot, close range and long. I can make longer shots with relative ease that I would not make or be very slow to make with irons.

close up, sub 7 yards, I’m mostly point aiming for A-zones without issues. Dots or irons, not sure it matters in that case

batteries? If you keep up on your stuff this isn’t a problem. Also, Holosun SCS…

Whether they are your jam or not, dots are the future. There will be an entire generation of shooters here soon (already is?) that rely on dots as first and primary for of aim.

 

To each his or her own, of course. Certainly one should be confident with their equipment. For myself, although I use red dots for some competition events, I am not convinced of their benefits for concealed carry.

 

What about a holster for a G19 with optic? You guys much out there? I am old school and a little hesitant to try.


Sent from my iPhone using Glock Talk mobile app

 

What about a holster for a G19 with optic? You guys much out there? I am old school and a little hesitant to try.


Sent from my iPhone using Glock Talk mobile app

TONS of options. Most holster makers offer versions for optics and even weapons-mounted lights.

Hell, some even offer holsters for P80s with optics and WML. I don't EDC a WML, though. My current rig from Blade Tech.

Another from Vedder:

 

I do carry my Glock 40 and Walther pdp occasionally, but only owb. they get nasty up close and personal in hot and humid conditions! 99% of the time I carry my Glock 29 with irons!

 

My biggest optic “Pros” are that I wear trifocals and have an astigmatism.

With irons, keeping both eyes open results in double front sights, and I have to spend time remembering to use the right one.

With irons keeping one or two eyes open and focusing on front sight with gun at arms length, or even a bit closer in a modified Weaver, my sight picture leaves LOTS to be desired. Also takes forever to get back on target, well a second or two more that an optic, but that time is important to me.

With an optic and astigmatism, I actually see a burst of dots…so a 3 MOA “dot”, for me, is a several smaller dot explosion that I use as as a 6-8 MOA dot. Not great for competition but great for self defense.

This target was from me sighting in my Holosun 507 Vulcan (green dot in bigger circle that helps find fit super quick). Once I used the center oval (#1) to get dot where I wanted it, I fired 5 magazines of 10 RDS as fast as I could at #2, then the same at #1 with my carry ammo. As fast as I could meant as soon as I could get my dot was on the oval. Target was at 21 ft and I was shooting two handed standing, modified Weaver.

I am very happy with the results and doubt I’d come anywhere close to matching this using irons, as I doubt I’d see the ovals very well (if at all) at 21 ft while focusing on front sight. With optic, both eyes are open and I’m focusing on oval, putting my dots where I want bullet to hit.

As others have mentioned, I did have to put a lot of practice into shooting, but from day one of optics, MY sight picture with an optic was exponentially better than with irons.

Your mileage may vary, but I’m never going back to irons unless an emergency. And if you check specs on newer optics, batteries are not (and will not be) an issue if one can remember to put a new one in every year or so.

 

I'm still on the fence about pistol red dots. I like the simplicity of irons.

I have been thinking about getting a Glock 26 milled for a red dot. I only have interest in an enclosed red dot. I don't like the open emitters at all. Still not sure it's worth the cost and the added bulk. I also don't really like permanently modifying my guns, especially for something electronic which will be obsolete in the future.

 

I'm still on the fence about pistol red dots. I like the simplicity of irons.

I have been thinking about getting a Glock 26 milled for a red dot. I only have interest in an enclosed red dot. I don't like the open emitters at all. Still not sure it's worth the cost and the added bulk. I also don't really like permanently modifying my guns, especially for something electronic which will be obsolete in the future.

Sounds like the Leupold micro optic for Glock might be right up your alley. Smaller window, but enclosed and mounts in dovetail, so easy to remove without affecting gun. I have one on my G32.